Hollyn (that's a really pretty name; where's it from?)
Welcome, and sorry you need to be here. You'll find a lot of info and personal experiences and opinions here on ADR and fusion; if I can give you a bit of advice: what you need to do is really try and take the time to study all sides of treatment options before you firmly plant your flag in one or the other:
Quote:
|
it has been made very clear to me they will not cover this procedure cause they are stuck in the dark ages and consider it experimental and fusion a much better option. Well at my age I refuse to have fusion done and my doctor agrees saying he would not perform it on me.
|
Surgeon's opinions on the real efficiency of ADR vary widely. Your doc may be 'for' it based on some convincing studies and positive experiences; others are more cautious about the models on the market today due to essentially four things in my research experience:
1) seeing a worrisome number of ADR recipients experiencing the same or worse pain post-op;
2) patients who feel better initially, and whose pain returns after time (you'll find a few cases here);
3) revision surgery (in case of failure) is at this date a largely dangerous and even life-threatening procedure;
4) the real life of the device(s) is undetermined for the moment. For someone who is young such as yourself, that could be a concern, for the above reason (3). In vivo testing generally puts the life at a minimum of 40 years, but (for ex, on the Charite, but I've heard the same lifespan on other models, ProDisc, Mobi):
"Paul McAfee, a Johnson & Johnson consultant with a financial interest in the discs, indicated that he would be satisfied with far less. "Well, I hope they will last 40 years. But "honestly, to talk to the patients, 10 years is (a) pretty good outcome."
http://www.thestreet.com/stocks/meli.../10223280.html
Granted, McAfee is known for his reserved stance on ADR; others you will see in articles seem completely 'for' ADR and certain discs. However, both 'pro' and 'con' (Adr) surgeons are accused of bias, and of favoring and promoting the info, technique, and device(s) they want the public to adopt.
Your insurance company is...an insurance company. Probably cheap and definitely self-interested. They don't want to pay and their excuse might be convenient for them, but it doesn't mean that they're necessarily in the dark ages on ADR. Many surgeons do still consider it experimental and are waiting for more data and next-generation technology before heading down that road. I live in Europe and work with a neurosurgeon who does cervical ADR but who for the moment will not do lumbar, for the reasons cited above. With 20 years of good experience in ALIF (anterior lumbar interbody fusion), and new progress in TLIF (transformaminal approach), he still considers lumbar fusion a safer and more sure method of pain relief for patients.
My goal here isn't to terrify you or turn you off ADR, but to show you that while it's a promising technique there are some very real concerns and some very real risks--and failures-- despite a seemingly 'pro-ADR' environment here and elsewhere (by that I mean you'll generally see more posts from patients who are recovering well, than those who aren't doing so well or who are worse). You need to know of these risks BEFORE surgery; not after. So as a patient, you've really got to do a lot of your own research and above all, soul-searching to decide which treatment--and which prosthesis if you choose ADR-- you feel the most comfortable with.
Not an easy decision. But this place is great for info and support and if it's any consolation, we've all spent nights staring at the ceiling wondering which way is the 'right way'
. I'm heading for a cervical ADR myself, by the way--but putting it off as long as I can to see what else might develop in this rapid-moving industry.
Good luck,
Trace